Posts Tagged ‘Silverstream’

Well as I mentioned in an earlier post, unfortunately under current legislation in NZ, the LLA can only consider applications based upon the context of the Liquor Act., the result an off-licence granted.

Approval has been given for an off-licence alcohol business to open in Silverstream, despite the Liquor Licensing Authority recognising “clear evidence that public antipathy to the proposal was endemic”.

Mrs Patel is doing no wrong under this act, and as such has made a consideration for her licence application by closing her shop doors in the period raised by objectors, something she did not have to do, but no doubt to appease those greatly concerned.

The Judge as I mentioned was faced with the context of the law, and while aware of objections I believe had no other position available than to grant the application with provisos of the applicant, that is closing in the period she mentioned. He has a number of discretionary conditions he can put on the application as well. The Police and other agencies are also tied by the fact that the applicant is doing no wrong in applying and not breaking any rules, just applying for a commercial licence to sell liquor as is allowed in NZ.

“It is our view that we have no option other than to grant the application. The company fulfils all the criteria …
“However, we do have the right to fix the days and hours of trade … we believe that we have a duty to take into account the likely impact of this new business on the neighbourhood. In doing so we must consider the effect on young people who are attending the nearby schools,” Judge Unwin’s decision says.

The fault is fact lies with current legislation that does not take into consideration public concerns around liquor distribution, and the current backlash against liquor outlets that has increased in recent times. New legislation is before Parliament in May next year I think, to change the context of the act, but that could take several months knowing legalisation.

Judge Unwin acknowledged the community response and the objectors presenting “as a cohesive body who were very concerned about what they saw as a detrimental impact that the proposal would have on the current village culture of Silverstream”.

The “close knit and engaged community did not want the proposal to proceed”.

“The impact of the evidence was such that the application might well have been refused, had there been the power to do so,” Judge Unwin’s decision says.

“However, the application has to be determined on the criteria set out in the Sale of Liquor Act 1989, and not on the wish of the people. The fact that a new bottle store is unwelcome in a community is not a ground for refusing to grant a licence.”

Take heed that the Police are actively managing bad outlets to combat problems in this area, very strongly in the Hutt Valley. If you are caught selling to underaged or other infringements under the act it is highly unlikely your licence will not be renewed. Unfortunately current crap legislation opened the gate to the growth of suburban liquor outlets, without input from the community. We were suppose to be a mature nation around liquor consumption. The concession over the opening hours does go some way to meeting Silverstream community concerns, but I doubt strongly with legislation akin to Pokies licences, which is advocated in liquor discussion document that this outlet would have gone ahead. Timing is everything.

An off-licence liquor store proposed for Fergusson Dr, directly opposite St Patrick’s College, Silverstream, would shut its doors at school finishing time, a Liquor Licensing Authority hearing in Upper Hutt has been told.

On all school days the “stand alone” business would close for the hour between 2.45pm and 3.45pm, the applicant, Bhavna Patel, told a recent licensing hearing at the Upper Hutt District Court.

“The store will be closed when school is finished,” Mrs Patel said in her formal address to the one-day commission of inquiry.

“That’s a good way of preventing children from accessing the store,” she said.

An authority decision on whether an off-licence at 206 Fergusson Dr will be allowed to begin trading is expected mid-October, after Judge Bill Unwin formally reserved his decision.

Public advertising of the proposed off-licence attracted more than 130 submissions in opposition, including nearby schools St Patrick’s Silverstream College and Silverstream Primary School.

Several community-based objectors detailed their opposition, collectively arguing against the suitability of the proposed business and questioning Mrs Patel.

Many of the issues in opposition were heard in detail, but may not be relevant to a decision which will made strictly under the Sale of Liquor Act.

Opening the application by Patel Holdings Ltd for a “stand alone bottle store,” counsel Jonathan Scragg commented on the high number of objections.

But he also clearly drew attention to the fact there was “no opposition by the New Zealand Police, by the District Licensing Authority and the Regional Medical Officer of Health”.

The submissions “appear primarily to be from the local community, including schools”, Mr Scragg noted.
A seven-days-a-week convenience store is now operating at the Fergusson Dr location.

If the liquor licence is granted, Mrs Patel told the hearing that business would cease and the building used solely as an off-licence.

It would open seven days, from 9am to 9pm Sunday to Thursday, and 9am to 10pm on Friday and Saturday (with the afternoon closure).

The proposed off-licence’s “fit” with the Silverstream suburban community, where a 24-hour alcohol ban operates, was a constant point in opposition.

This issue was one my own family had discussed, and I personally consulted the District Licensing Authority run by the Upper Hutt City Council, when this first arose. The issue given the number of objections had been forwarded to the Liquor Licensing Authority (LLA), and this is where we are at yesterday, decision due mid October.

Unfortunately under current legislation in NZ, the LLA can only consider applications based upon the context of the Liquor Act. Mrs Patel is doing no wrong under this act, and as such has made a consideration for her licence application by closing her shop doors in the period raised by objectors, something she did not have to do, but no doubt to appease those greatly concerned.

The Judge while reserving his decision is faced with the context of the law, and while aware of objections I believe will have no other position available than to grant the application with provisos of the applicant, that is closing in the period she mentioned. He has a number of discretionary conditions he can put on the application as well. The Police and other agencies are also tied by the fact that the applicant is doing no wrong in applying and not breaking any rules, just applying for a commercial licence to sell liquor as is allowed in NZ.
The fault lies with current legislation that does not take into consideration public concerns around liquor distribution,and the current backlash against liquor outlets that has increased in recent times. New legislation is before Parliament in May next year I think, to change the context of the act, but that could take several months knowing legalisation.

So rightfully the Judge has reserved his decision, to get a feel for the lie of the land, consult precedents in the act, but sorry even though I think this should not go ahead from a personal perspective cannot see how the licence will not be granted.

Take heed that the Police are actively managing bad outlets to combat problems in this area, strongly in the Hutt Valley. If you are caught selling to underaged or other infringements under the act it is highly unlikely your licence will not be renewed. Unfortunately current crap legislation opened the gate to the growth of suburban liquor outlets, without input from the community. We were suppose to be a mature nation around liquor consumption.

Until such time as Mrs Patel makes an error under the act, she has a legal and valid reason to open an outlet no matter how many objections.

In conclusion I’m glad I’m not the Judge, precedents are always allowed to be queried, he will be looking around the rest of the country for some way to satisfy objectors while not breaking what is the context of the act, free enterprise in the right to sell liquor.

We recently had a lengthy debate over this issue via Twitter on HuttNZ and within my own family. It would appear that the 130 submissions is not enough to deter the District Licensing Authority from continuing with providing an avenue for this off-licence to go ahead. But to put it in perspective, I did speak to the UHCC over this and the application was raised to the District authority level given the number of negative submissions (its the course of law).
I would hope that the weight of these submissions is enough, and physical presence is not required to show that the general public is against this off licence occurring.

The nearest place to get “hard liquor” is across the railway tracks at Charltons Bar, which has an off licence which is not particularly popular or well advertised. But free enterprise being what it is, Mr Patel has every right to see if he can gain the right.

Only a few years ago the section of Hulls Creek from Silverstream to the Hutt River was plagued with weeds and rubbish. But it’s come a long way in recent times, thanks to the work of dedicated volunteers .

It is the impressive achievements of the Forest and Bird Silverstream Care Group, who’ve been working hard to restore Hulls Creek and its surrounding environment back to health and create a walkway linking Silverstream to the Hutt River Trail.

Work was begun in 2003. The stream was heavily polluted and clogged with disintegrating willows, and the wider area was thick with rubbish and weeds that had migrated from people’s backyards and the resulting close proximity to the landfill.

The area has a new fish pass (designed to make it easier for migrating fish to swim upstream past weirs, the Hutt River one in particular), information panels, sites of native plantings, a wetland, and progress on the walkway.

It is a credit to this group and their efforts. Unfortunately the actions of a few seem to hinder their efforts. As a visit to this site today illustrated. I can only congratulate this group, but the area being used as a dumping ground by others must cause this group to wonder if the effort is worth it.

The Hutt Valleys 2 city councils are considering lifting fees per tonne from $78 to $84, which is likely to affect rubbish company charges and trickle down to Hutt residents in costs of material taken to landfill.

Also on top of this a new $10 per tone waste minimisation levy mandated by Parliament will also come into effect on the 1st July, but half of that money will come back to the city to fund waste minimisation / recycling activities